<h3>Abstract</h3> Denmark was the first Western country to grant statutory access to abortion within its national health system in 1973. Since then, abortion legislation has remained relatively stable, with only incremental adjustments. This article examines parliamentary debates and legislative proposals on abortion from 1973 to 2025 to trace shifts in the justificatory frameworks surrounding abortion policy. Our analysis shows a clear transition from religiously grounded arguments in the early 1970s to an emphasis on ethical, health-related, and individual-rights-based arguments in subsequent decades. After legalization, abortion largely became a depoliticized “valence issue,” rarely provoking polarized debates, except through the Christian People’s Party, which gradually abandoned its opposition. By 2023–2025, discussions centered not on the legitimacy of abortion itself, but on boundaries such as gestational limits and access for minors. The role of the Danish Ethical Council illustrates how nonreligious understandings of ethics— rooted in autonomy, health, and equality—came to dominate the debate, while theological perspectives became increasingly marginal. Drawing on Ronald Inglehart’s concept of Nordicization, we argue that the Danish case reflects a broader cultural shift from pro-fertility norms to individual-choice norms. At the same time, the framework of abortion committees and collective ethical deliberation highlights how individual autonomy remains embedded in a societal responsibility to safeguard abortion as an ethical practice. The Danish abortion debate thus exemplifies the declining role of religion in politics and the growing importance of women’s rights, health, and collective ethics in shaping reproductive legislation.

<h3>Abstract</h3> This article analyzes how religion and life stance (<i>livssyn</i>) are legitimized and delegitimized in Norwegian political party manifestos (2021–2025). In a context of growing secularization, pluralism, and public funding of religious and life stance communities, the legitimacy of state support for religion has become increasingly contested. Drawing on a document analysis of the nine parties represented in parliament, the study identifies six legitimizing motifs—religion as a human right, essential to individuals, beneficial for society, contributive to the welfare state, cultural heritage, and an agent of change—and four delegitimizing motifs—religion as illiberal, divisive, foreign, and discriminatory against minorities. Using Theo van Leeuwen’s framework of legitimation, the article shows that moral evaluation and instrumental rationalization are the most frequent strategies employed, with additional reliance on naturalization, theoretical rationalization, and authorization. The findings demonstrate that “good” religion is typically framed as liberal, private, cultural, or welfare-oriented, often associated with Christianity and humanism, while “bad” religion is constructed as foreign, illiberal, or socially divisive, frequently linked to Islam or religious privilege. These patterns cut across the left–right spectrum, reflecting broader negotiations over national identity, values, and social cohesion. The article contributes to understanding the shifting grounds of religious legitimacy in contemporary Norwegian politics.

<h3>Abstract</h3> This article examines a murder allegation that lies at the heart of Karl Ove Knausgård’s novel <i>Min kamp</i>, and posits that the allegation serves dual purposes, namely, to investigate the purported murder of Knausgård’s father and to enact revenge. These endeavors raise questions that are foundational to the study of literature, regarding interpretation and moral responsibility. While the allegation suggests a specific suspect, it relies on aesthetic devices, notably on references to Shakespeare’s <i>Hamlet</i>, which are analyzed in depth throughout the article. Aarstein contends that that the murder allegation constitutes both the most morally contentious and the most aesthetically striking aspect of <i>Min kamp</i>.

This article examines two paintings of sick girls by the Danish painters Michael Ancher and Ejnar Nielsen and asks whether it makes sense at all to discuss certain diseases when none of the artists diagnosed their paintings of sick or convalescent girls with a particular disease. Though these paintings of sick girls differ in the way they are composed, the titles of the works vary very little, the greatest difference often being whether the painting is titled “The Sick Girl” or “The Convalescent.” But does the title of the work affect the viewers9 perception of it, and does the title always make sense when one looks at the painting?

Lynn R. Wilkinson . Laughter and Civility: The Theater of Emma Gad . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2020. Pp. 318. Laughter and Civility: The Theater of Emma Gad is an inaugural study of the plays of Emma Gad, a figure remembered solely for her etiquette book Takt og Tone (Tact and

This article investigates how Brit Bildøen’s novel <i>Sju dagar i august</i> (2014) explores climate change and denial. Although the novel, through temporal and spatial cues, portrays climate change as real and imminent, it also depicts characters in unacknowledged denial. By using Robert J. Lifton’s, Stanley Cohen’s, and Kari Marie Norgaard’s studies on denial as a theoretical tool, I illustrate how three levels of denial mirror each other: denial of climate change is closely related to denial of the loss of a daughter and denial of a tick bite. Furthermore, this article demonstrates that the structural and metaphorical features of the text—such as the reliance on the literary narratives of the flood and the pastoral, the widely anthropomorphized nature, and many biblical connotations—are aesthetic traits that support the thematic content and cement the nature-culture dichotomy. Hence, the novel appears to eradicate human agency and thereby any hope for change. The lack of distance between the characters and the narrative voice through the frequent use of free indirect discourse reinforces the pessimistic view.

This article examines the short entry titled “Kjønnslepper” (“Labia”) from the first volume of Karl Ove Knausgård’s encyclopedia of the seasons series, <i>Om høsten</i> (<i>Autumn</i>) (2015). It wrestles with the entry’s potential to scandalize and juxtaposes its anatomy with some ideas about shame from queer theory, developments in sex education, and feminist approaches to female genitalia. I argue that the primary anatomy of “Labia” is not labia <i>as they are</i>, but rather Knausgård’s face-saving relationship to the vulva. After addressing my motivations for writing about and teaching Knausgård, I work through what I maintain are the three parts of “Labia” in order, showing how the entry expresses a longing for lost (paternal) innocence, places genitalia on a familiar path of heterosexualization, and replicates conventional ideas about sex. Along the way, I also interrupt Knausgård’s monologue with alternative vulval inventories to demonstrate that the anatomy of “Labia” is a figuration among others, while resisting its trajectory away from the vulva in favor of the face.

Comparing Lars Gustafsson’s novel <i>Tennisspelarna</i> (1977) and Sven Delblanc’s novel <i>Åsnebrygga</i> (1969) as two similar accounts of a Swedish professor and writer encountering American campus life in the years around 1970, this article analyzes the differences between Europe and the United States from various perspectives, using Jean Baudrillard’s travelogue <i>America</i> as a guide. I tentatively read the novels as autobiographies, campus novels, and travelogues. Thereby, I study the treatment of time, space and the human body in the novels, uncovering the role of the desert and of the fitness cult, as well as the way the novels treat the civil rights movement and new developments in media and technology. In the end, I argue that the encounter with America is treated as an expansion of media ecology and that the narrators experience a serious case of future shock: America is shown as a world that is deeply simulational, more science-fictional than real.

Scholars of pre-modern literature are becoming increasingly aware of the necessity to include the study of lost texts within literary histories (Matthews 2020, 230). The study of lost literary works (literary chamenology) can make use of techniques belonging to the field of textual criticism such as stemmatics but is able to go beyond them in reconstructing the contents, and not necessarily form, when—for example—disentangling remnants of source texts from compilations. This mode of study has long been practiced in Bible Studies, for example, by the proponents of the documentary hypothesis.In this article, I attempt to lay out the contents of the lost original of a component text of the fourteenth-century Sturlunga saga, namely: Þórðar saga kakala (*Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla). The approach taken to reconstructing the content of the lost original of Þórðar saga kakala in this article is an inversion of redaction criticism. It seeks after the contents of the source text, *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla, by taking the contents of Þórðar saga kakala in the extant manuscripts and reversing the compilational and editorial processes in play throughout its transmission history. This critique makes use of the categories of evidence used in textual criticism (external and internal evidence) but is not interested in the production of an edition of the lost original.Nearly all the earliest modern scholars were of the view that Þórðar saga kakala covers more or less the same time line as *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla. Björn M. Ólsen expressed the view that *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla encompassed an account of the years 1242 to 1256, while Pétur Sigurðsson claimed it covered an even shorter period, suggesting the original saga encompassed the period 1242 to 1250 or possibly only 1247 (Björn M. Ólsen 1902, 348; Pétur Sigurðsson 1933–1935, 91, 148, 151).However, their successors Kristian Kålund and Jón Jóhannesson took the opposite view and separately declared the opening of Þórðar saga kakala to be unnatural and unusual, conjecturing that it opened with Þórður's birth and upbringing as well as his sojourn in Norway between 1237 and 1242 (Kålund 1901, 296ff.; Jón Jóhannesson 1946, xli).Úlfar Bragason has noted that most scholars today are in agreement with Kristian Kålund and Jón Jóhannesson that the narrative of *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla reported on a much longer period of history than Þórðar saga kakala (Úlfar Bragason 2010, 101). Be that as it may, it is considered that *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla need not necessarily have been much more lengthy than Þórðar saga kakala in terms of word count.The only researcher in recent times to express a belief that Þórðar saga kakala is essentially representative of the content of the original saga is Einar Már Jónsson, who thinks the narrative had been left unfinished by its author in 1249 (Einar Már Jónsson 2006, 51). I do not give much regard to Einar's resurrection of this traditional view, but it is nevertheless important for us to assess whether or not the now dominant modern view of *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla's content is supported by the evidence.Þórðar saga kakala begins in medias res. Chapter 1 is a prologue of sorts, summarizing events in Iceland following the seizure of two of Þórður's cousins, Órækja Snorrason and Sturla Þórðarson, at Hvítárbrú in the year 1242. The chapter reports that Órækja and Gissur Þorvaldsson traveled abroad and tells how Kolbeinn ungi subjugated the Western Quarter of Iceland to his leadership. Chapter 2 describes Þórður kakali's arrival back in Iceland in September 1242. Chapters 2–5 provide an account of Þórður's attempt to gather support for his case against Kolbeinn and Gissur for the deaths of his father and brothers at Örlygsstaðir in 1238.Chapters 6–7 explain the course of events when, after gathering an army, Þórður immediately invades the Southern Quarter. This campaign comes off as a success in chapter 7, and chapters 8–10 describe the escape of Þórður and his men from Kolbeinn, who has been made aware of the incursion by Hjalti biskupsson, the interim leader of Árnesþing.Chapters 11–22 tell of a series of escalating skirmishes between Þórður's and Kolbeinn's sides, and the raising of navies by each. Following a devastating attack on Vatnsdalur by Þórður, Kolbeinn avenges himself by pillaging Dalir and the region around Reykhólar, before hunting down Þórður's brother, Tumi yngri, and killing him, in chapters 23–26. This outrage, and the harsh measures imposed on the Eyfirðingar, set the stage for chapters 27–35, which describe the course of the naval engagement called the Battle of Húnaflói and the amphibious maneuvers that followed.Although the Battle of Húnaflói proves indecisive, a partial resolution between the two sides is reached in chapters 36–38 by Kolbeinn returning Þórður's patrimony to him and dying shortly after. Þórður establishes himself as the leader of Eyjafjörður while Brandur Kolbeinsson takes the helm in Skagafjörður. Chapters 39–41 describe escalating tensions between Þórður and Brandur, culminating in a second confrontation at the Battle of Haugsnes in chapters 42–4.Having summarily executed Brandur following a catastrophic defeat of the Skagfirðingar, Þórður and Gissur agree to resolve their own dispute through the mediation of the Norwegian king in chapter 45. The two travel to Norway and submit their case to the Norwegian king's judgment in chapter 46. Chapter 47 tells what happened next in Iceland and dates the death of Brandur. Returning to Norway in chapter 48, it is stated that Cardinal William of Sabina decided the dispute in Þórður's favor, and that he was to be sent by the Norwegian king to promote the royal cause with the assistance of the new bishop elect of Hólar, Henrik.Chapter 49 summarizes Þórður's time in Iceland during the period 1247–1250. Most of the narrative is taken up with the matter of how he established leadership over the whole country, and notes some key events during his ascendancy. Þórður and Bishop Henrik, however, fall out, for the latter believes the former to have labored more on his own behalf than the king's. The consequence is that Bishop Henrik goes to Norway and makes the case against Þórður before King Håkon in 1249. Chapter 49 ends abruptly in the Winter of 1249–1250 by telling how few support Þórður's case in Norway.Chapter 50—the last—picks up the story 4 years after the end of chapter 49, with Gissur's arrival in Norway in 1254 after the Flugumýri Arson on October 22, 1253. After a confrontation with Þórður at the court, we hear about Þórður's activity in Norway as a sheriff, his popularity, and then an account of his death.Þórðar saga kakala is preserved in Sturlunga saga, a compilation of texts mostly centered on the feuds of the Icelandic political élite during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.The Sturlunga saga canon comprises the following texts: Geirmundar þáttur heljarskinns, Þorgils saga og Hafliða, Ættartölur, Sturlu saga, Íslendinga saga, Prestssaga Guðmundar góða Arasonar, Guðmundar saga dýra, Haukdæla þáttur, Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar, Þórðar saga kakala, Þorgils saga skarða, Svínfellinga saga, and Sturlu þáttur. It is worth noting that Sturlunga saga is not composed of a selection of self-contained narratives. This is because many of its component texts have been interlaced to place events in a mostly chronological order, thus forming a single narrative.Sturlunga saga is extant in forty-nine manuscripts, only two of which are medieval vellums. Given Þórðar saga kakala's inclusion in the two medieval manuscripts, it is overwhelmingly likely that it was introduced during the compilation of the original Sturlunga saga (*Sturlunga saga).The identity of the compiler of *Sturlunga saga is obscure, although it is widely held to have been either Þórður Narfason or Þorsteinn Snorrason who compiled it at some point during the early- to mid-fourteenth century (Helgi Þorláksson 2012, 79). Þórður Narfason (d. 1308), one of the Skarðverjar, was lawman twice: the first time before and the second at the turn of the fourteenth century. Importantly, it is known that Þórður studied law at the lawman Sturla Þórðarson's knee during the Winter of 1271–1272 (Sigurður Sigurmundsson 1963, 33). Þorsteinn böllóttur Snorrason (d. 1351), one of the Melamenn, was abbot of Helgafell from 1344 (though consecrated in 1345) until his death (Helgi Þorláksson 2012, 56).In addition to Þórðar saga kakala, *Sturlunga saga is thought to have included the following texts: Geirmundar þáttur heljarskinns, Þorgils saga og Hafliða, Ættartölur, Sturlu saga, Íslendinga saga, Prestssaga Guðmundar góða Arasonar, Guðmundar saga dýra, Haukdæla þáttur, Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar, and Svínfellinga saga. Guðrún Nordal highlights that Þorgils saga skarða and Sturlu þáttur were introduced into Sturlunga saga during the late fourteenth century and that these two texts were not part of *Sturlunga saga (Guðrún Nordal 2006, 308, 311). Guðni Jónsson notes that it is believed that Þórður Hítnesingur was the author of Þorgils saga skarða and Sturlu þáttur, and that he wrote during the period 1275–1280 (Guðni Jónsson 1954, 1: xi).Íslendinga saga is the largest component text of Sturlunga saga, and it is certain that a version of it formed the larger part of *Sturlunga saga. This is because its text constitutes a substantial portion of all extant versions of Sturlunga saga: no doubt this is why the traditional name for the compilation is Íslendinga saga hin mikla. For example, it is used as the title for the seventeenth-century manuscript of Sturlunga saga AM 116 fol. Occasionally, the title used was simply Íslendinga saga (e.g., AM 115 fol., 1r.).Íslendinga saga describes political events in Iceland during the 80-year period from the death of Hvamm-Sturla Þórðarson in the early 1180s until the end of the Commonwealth period in the early 1260s. The original (*Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka) was composed by Sturla Þórðarson (Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir 2017, 8). As it is known that Sturla died in 1284, we have a clear terminus ante quem for *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka (Jón Viðar Sigurðsson and Sverrir Jakobsson 2017, 6). There has been debate over how much of *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka Sturla wrote before his demise. Björn M. Ólsen and Pétur Sigurðsson both believed that *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka did not go beyond 1255 (Björn M. Ólsen 1902, 385ff.; Pétur Sigurðsson 1933–1935, 10ff.). Björn thought the post-1255 material in Sturlunga saga, which editors have long classified as part of *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka had originally belonged to a lost *Gissurar saga og Skagfirðinga. Pétur believed that *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka was finished off by the compiler after Sturla's death, due to the patchy quality that characterizes the narrative of Íslendinga saga from the mid-1250s onward. Jón Jóhannesson disagreed with Björn and Pétur, arguing that Sturla did write all of *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka and, moreover, that it reflects in its surviving form (i.e., Íslendinga saga) the fact that Sturla deliberately left gaps, due to an assumption on his part that readers might find accounts of this history already written in other sagas (Jón Jóhannesson 1946, xxxiv–xli); however, this is unlikely to be correct, for we know that Íslendinga saga is not identical to *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka. More recently, R. George Thomas has upheld Pétur's view that Sturla did not live to write *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka beyond 1255 and that it was finished off by Þórður Narfason after Sturla's death to the best of his ability (Thomas 1970, 23). Regardless of whether or not Þórður was the person responsible for compiling *Sturlunga saga, I think it likely—given his pupillage under Sturla—that he would have been the one who attempted to finalize *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka if his teacher truly died before completion. Perhaps Þórður was the one who endeavored to finish *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka by piecing together notes left behind by his former teacher and appending them to what Sturla had already drafted, while Þorsteinn Snorrason was the compiler of *Sturlunga saga?The other texts in Sturlunga saga are inserted at the front and posterior of Íslendinga saga or have been woven into it; they also interlace with each other at times. Wherever content in *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla or other independent versions of sagas in the Sturlunga saga canon was mirrored somewhere in *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka, it was almost always redacted from one or the other by the compiler during the creation of *Sturlunga saga, leaving a single component text to provide the information (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, 188). The same applied when any of the texts that were compiled into *Sturlunga saga contained the same content as each other in independent form. Nonetheless, the compiler did not do this in every case.There are many possible explanations for why the compiler kept two or more accounts of certain events, the most probable being hasty composition; oversight due to human error because of the scale of the compilation; an aspiration to include as detailed accounts as possible; an awareness by the compiler of the proper due diligence required of him within medieval Icelandic historiographical practice to note contradictory reports, so that his audience might know, and decide between, alternative perspectives on what happened; or a desire to preserve narrative flow or other stylistic qualities that may have been destroyed by editing that was too heavy-handed.Beyond redacting duplicate content, the compiler further edited the texts he included in *Sturlunga saga. Among the texts in *Sturlunga saga, only Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar has survived to the present day in two complete recensions independent of the Sturlunga saga manuscript tradition, one of which is an abridgment, but which are both known to scholars by the title Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar hin sérstaka. Comparison of Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar with Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar hin sérstaka is valuable for working out the working method of the compiler of *Sturlunga saga (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, 193). Additionally, there are several Guðmundar sögur—hagiographic accounts of Bishop Guðmundur Arason's life—apart from the Sturlunga saga canon's Prestssaga Guðmundar góða Arasonar in existence (Stefán Karlsson 1983; Skórzewska 2011). Guðmundar sögur evidently derive most of their content from some recension of Sturlunga saga (as well as other extant and lost texts), although it is not altogether clear whether or not the extra materials they contain come from an independent version of Prestssaga Guðmundar góða Arasonar or elsewhere (Sigurdson 2016, 40). Interestingly, Guðmundar saga A may be more representative of *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka than Íslendinga saga, giving further insights into the compiler's working method (Zimmerling 2005, 560–1). Still further, Þorgils saga skarða is preserved in an independent fragment (NRA 56, of which only two leaves survive, dated to c. 1300), but that saga was not part of *Sturlunga saga (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, 193). The comparison of the surviving leaves of NRA 56 with the version of Þorgils saga skarða in the Sturlunga saga manuscript tradition does, however, underscore the method of the editor of Reykjafjarðarbók, who first introduced it into the compilation.Returning to Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar and Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar hin sérstaka: comparisons between the independent and compiled versions of the saga carried out by Úlfar Bragason, Guðrún Nordal, Ásdís Egilsdóttir, and Torfi H. Tulinius have found the former far less religious in character than the latter (Úlfar Bragason 1988; Guðrún Nordal 2000, 221ff.; Ásdís Egilsdóttir 2004; Torfi H. Tulinius 2016, 94). Margaret Cormack has also noted the compiler's decision to incorporate a version of the saga of Bishop Guðmundur sans the miracles in its independent versions, but neither of the sagas of the other saintly bishops of Iceland Þorlákur and Jón may indicate that a distinction was being made “between the religious and the historical” in selecting content for inclusion (Cormack 2005, 27).These scholars appear to have hit on a valid conclusion given the secularity (and brevity) of Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar when compared with Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar hin sérstaka:Nonetheless, it is important to note that secularization was not the aim of the compiler, but a consequence of the compiler's process, which was extracting feud narratives from those of his chosen texts that contained them for inclusion in the compilation (Úlfar Bragason 2010, 186). In selecting which component text to provide an account of feud where it existed in more than one, the compiler appears to have chosen the one that had provided the most detailed report of events in independent form. For example, the compiler did not include *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka's account of Þórður kakali's career in Iceland during the years 1242–1250, choosing instead to incorporate *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla's narrative, which likely provided more detail than the former.Úlfar Bragason emphasizes that the feuds the compiler was interested in were between Icelanders, and that he therefore substantially abridged or redacted content discussing foreign travel except when it was explicitly relevant to his focus on Icelandic disputes, though it may nevertheless have also been shortened (Úlfar Bragason 2010, 186). Whilst Helgi Þorláksson has recently put forward a different view on the purpose of *Sturlunga saga whilst proposing Þorsteinn Snorrason as its compiler, most scholars have concluded that the collection of feud narratives was intended by the compiler of *Sturlunga saga to illustrate the social disorder caused by feud and to explore methods for re-establishing peace and order (Tranter 1987, 218–21; Guðrún Nordal 2000, 226; Ármann Jakobsson 2003, 337ff.; Úlfar Bragason 2010, 266ff.). It is worth noting, however, that this “consensus” view of the purpose of *Sturlunga saga does not necessarily require Þórður Narfason to have been the compiler.If we accept that *Sturlunga saga's compiler was primarily using feud narratives to explore themes of social disorder and peace strategies, then we need to account for why the compilation included texts that lack feud narratives (i.e., Geirmundar þáttur heljarskinns, Ættartölur, Haukdæla þáttur, and Prestssaga Guðmundar Arasonar). The explanation is simple and rather mundane: when putting together *Sturlunga saga, the compiler also incorporated and wrote additional texts without feud narratives in them to provide both background information for the accounts of conflict in *Sturlunga saga. Additionally, it is conceivable that these texts helped his and for example, the opening of Geirmundar þáttur a which with the to conflict (i.e., the king's of *Sturlunga saga from the fourteenth century are The are known as a and or simply I and was written during the or in Iceland (Úlfar Bragason Karlsson has stated that the that wrote AM saga hin dated to is the same one that wrote AM a fol. (Stefán Karlsson originally but we only have of these (Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir 2017, there are several in there are many surviving from known as the which us to the with a of The earliest of the manuscripts is AM fol., written c. by Jón (Úlfar Bragason AM fol. is the for the of that though it is worth noting that AM fol. is a was written c. at in and originally or more leaves (Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir 2017, made it through to the present most of it did Már Jónsson tells how it to in as it was by The a leaves to his for use as Jónsson 2010, of only leaves of due to collection of them at the of the from were made during the century and known as the of In c. Björn of made a of the now lost which was the of the recensions of Sturlunga saga to be with also written by which is a version of Björn mostly on but also from noting what material from which manuscript (Guðrún Björn also wrote a of in c. that today and is called AM (Guðrún A of manuscripts from are now two of which are considered to be of The first is composed by in Eyjafjörður in c. which is likely to be a of (Guðrún The second is is the of the Sturlunga saga manuscript held at the in put together at in c. which is a of The manuscripts give a of what was in its complete are a few between and recensions of Sturlunga saga. It is worth noting and view, on evidence from of the earliest Icelandic and that these were the consequence of the editors of and each from *Sturlunga saga A with is assumption that *Sturlunga saga's terminus quem of c. is representative of its of and, that the compilation the production of the earliest Icelandic It is important to that *Sturlunga saga does which is the earliest Icelandic has the about who compiled *Sturlunga saga, that the text have been written at almost any point during the first of the fourteenth century (Helgi Þorláksson for compiler have been known about at the century but for the most Þórður Narfason had been considered to have been until is the fact that even if some of the early did *Sturlunga saga as a there is no evidence to that their content was from that the of one source there is no to that the for and than *Sturlunga saga) would not also have been to the though these are few and it is to what *Sturlunga saga have been for its is thought to have been more representative of the texts of the Sturlunga saga canon than (Björn M. Ólsen 1902, This view can be through two that indicate that the editor of independent versions of the texts in *Sturlunga saga while his or manuscript of Sturlunga first is Björn M. that because was far more religious in character than (and more detailed in most own which is supported by Guðrún Nordal 2010, it be a of what the texts of Sturlunga saga were before they were first compiled into *Sturlunga saga, given what we about the compiler's working Nonetheless, it is important to this with an awareness from a on which to to *Sturlunga saga or some of the between and can also be as of each Guðrún Nordal is on the of the between the two Sturlunga saga in their as would have that certain material be included or (Guðrún Nordal 2006, It be for that of with be by the Icelandic or on the After the of the Icelandic and were not far from second that can be made in of the editor of independent versions of the texts in *Sturlunga saga while his or manuscript of Sturlunga saga is on the identity of evidence that was by Björn possibly his at which is thought to have a (Stefán Karlsson 2000, Björn is known to have written up to of the medieval Icelandic manuscripts that have survived down to the present day Már 2005, may that other texts known to have been written by Björn might give an of the editorial approach taken to As an example, us manuscript AM fol., a manuscript of saga hin which in all its recensions is the most of the sagas centered on the and of King of Norway its name notes that in AM fol., Björn an early recension of saga by it with material from saga, saga, saga, and in addition to versions of þáttur and þáttur and the narrative with lost material written by the about to 2005, Björn is known to have the saga that he edited using other texts on at one The now is whether or not Björn also did this when he edited know from that in complete form, account was almost always more detailed than a Guðrún Nordal 2006, For that there is additional content in recension of Þórðar saga kakala, which was not present in (e.g., some of the content about the incursion into Dalir around the time of us that of Þórðar saga is in more detail than it is in (Guðrún Nordal 2006, to be of that Þórðar saga kakala was shorter in than in on of a in which that chapters were not present in the former of the two Kålund own view is that the in saga saga to only to chapter given that this chapter is from AM and 49 are It is not clear whether chapter 47 was a portion of *Sturlunga saga that Björn decided not to into for some or if it was an addition by the editor of to editorial approach is the case of chapters such by Kålund of Svínfellinga saga in (as preserved by Chapters are not present in There has been much debate the of chapters Pétur Sigurðsson that chapters and were taken by the editor of from *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka, while was the own creation using Þorgils saga skarða Sigurðsson 1933–1935, Pétur's view with to the of chapters goes on to explain his view that the editor of have thought these would to the into their recension of Sturlunga saga, which has